Talk:Dianetics/Archive 10

Defining the minority view

Here is my first shot at a minority view. Please place comments at the end so I can read them and update this view.

The subject of the article is Dianetics, and the primary author of Dianetics is L. Ron Hubbard. His written works are citable and to be respected.

The primary publishers of these written works are Bridge Publications and New Era Publications. They have accurate, fact checking capabilities and are reputable and reliable publishers. They meet the standards of Wikipedia policy per WP:V.

The Wiki sub-articles of Dianetics; such as DMSMH, Dianetics Today, Engram, etc. are included in this view.

The intent of the minority view is to represent Dianetics in a positive light. Minority view citations may not be deleted simply because they are positive, or "too glowing", just as a majority citation would not being deleted for simply being "too pathetic" or "too dark".

Material presented should be a clear and true representation within the actual scope of the subject as written and practiced. The citable scope of the subject may not be reduced by the Majority View. Introductions will respect the actual scope of the subject.

Dianetics addresses the human spirit, and people wanting medical treatment are referred to competent medical specialists.

Dianetics addresses the human mind as a set of mental images of experience created by the spirit. It does not directly address the brain. These mental images containing sensation, can produce sensations in the body. Thus Dianetics is what the spirit is doing to the body through the mind.

Dianetics uses a technique called processing or auditing, that uses Dianetic developements in communications. No hypnosis is used, ever.

The goal of Dianetic therapy is the Clear. The various definitions of Clear and the count of Clears are to be respected.

The goal of Dianetics is a world without insanity, criminality and war.

Dianetics has been incorporated into Scientology in 1955 and its developement extends from 1930 to the present and will continue into the future.

It is understood that the Majority View may not agree with this view and not respect the same things, and will provide their own edits. But the Majority View may not present information that is known to be false. Spirit of Man 06:21, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments:

What is this, Spirit of Man? What is the goal of this manifesto? Are you proposing to drop this into the article, or does it have some other purpose? BTfromLA 07:14, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, BTfromLA. Above under objection to the poll, Tenebrous makes this statement; "The policy says that with pseudoscience, we should set out clearly what is the minority (pseudoscientific) view and what is the majority view. That's what we're after." I was just supplying a draft of what that might look like. It is not my intention to drop it into the article. It is just a statement of the minority view. Spirit of Man 02:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, Spirit of Man. The above looks more like a draft of some kind of statement of beliefs and principals than anything to do with encyclopedic writing, and it is hard for me to imagine how any of it would fit in the article. "His written works are citable and to be respected...the Majority View may not present information that is known to be false..." I'm at a loss as to how these sort of commandments have any place here. What has this to do with a dispassionate, encyclopedic description of anything? As to representing the minority view on pseudoscience, I think the goal should be to make a very concise, one or two sentence statement, probably something that begins along the lines of "Scientologists argue that Dianetics is in fact science because..." or "Supporters of Hubbard's work counter that the claims of pseudoscience are irrelevant to Dianetics because...", finished with a brief, clearly sourced example of their reasoning. (If you read my comments above, you know I'm also for reducing the overall length of the section about pseudoscience, and the fact that you seem to be proposing a lengthy counter-section only reinforces my case... ). One more thing, Spirit of Man: do you really believe Bridge Publications is the sort of "reliable source" or "reputable publisher" that the wikipedia guidelines about credible sources are describing? I think editors have explained to you several times why this is not the case, and I think if you read the guidelines that becomes pretty clear. I doubt that there is much fact checking involved in publications by L Ron Hubbard, if by fact checking you mean what the world of journalism means, and what Wikipedia means--independently verifying facts and sources. Bridge may have an army of "fact checkers" to make sure that every word is just as Hubbard intended it, but that isn't fact checking, which involves verifying that the writer of the book or article got their facts right, and changing the author's text if they discover that the author got something wrong or aserted something that is unverifiable. And the fact checking bit is hardly the only reason why Hubbard and Bridge are not reliable sources of scientific data about Dianetics... I find it hard to believe that you don't understand that. BTfromLA 06:21, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, thanks for the caring response. It looks like we have a few things to work out. I have no objection to encyclopedic writing or edits to correct that, and I haven't included that in this minority view. This Minority View consists of talking points and can be used to clarify things. For example, what is the Majority View? It is simple to ask, but the answers might be something else. Spirit of Man 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the lengthy responses, spirit of Man. I just got home from a 14+ hour work day, so I don't have the energy to respond in similar detail, sorry. I'll try to address a couple of key points, and come back for more later if time allows. BTfromLA 08:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You probably don't have time, but if someone would care to try a shot at a Majority View, that might be helpful. Spirit of Man 16:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

" What has this to do with a dispassionate, encyclopedic description of anything?" When I write a section on "the Goal of Dianetics" for example, it does not meet a dispassionate, encyclopedic editing process. It meets something very passionate instead that violates one of the above principles. [It also, violates Wiki policies and guidelines.] Its summary deletion is described in the Edit Summary as "POV pushing". It's discussion says they have no objection to its being there, but…[it isn't there anymore] I understand that to mean one of the above principles ["citable scope"] has not been respected. It was met with summary deletion instead. Primary citations which are the life blood of Wiki have been removed and the emotion of rejection, substituted. No balancing citation was presented. That editor was simply not complying with Wiki policy, WP:V. He apparently seeks to move a conception of neutrality ever more away from the factual citations of the subject. Spirit of Man 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I obviously can't address every example you have in mind of editors deleting your additions. It may well be that some of the deletions are rash, emotion-fuled, and pov-driven, as you suggest. But in my observations of the editing here, I think that many of your (and Terryeo's) contributions have been blatantly partisan and written in a manner that was either vague and difficult to follow or extremely subjective. On those grounds, they deserve to be severly edited, if not reverted outright. I will once again point out that I think many of the frustrations on all sides would be minimized by adhering to a standard of clear writing in an encyclopedic style. BTfromLA 08:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Point taken. Spirit of Man 16:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

People in Dianetics and Scientology don't think in terms of pseudoscience on this issue. They follow the Buddhist dictum or a saying credited to Gautama Siddartha; "What is true for you, is true" "What is not true for you, is not true." This is basically, what a Scientist says, when he tests the hypothesis or theory of another. Can he test it, can "he" observe the same things, can "he" see the same phenomenon, and can "he" come to a different conclusion or is the theory so sound, that no other conclusion seems possible? To a greater or lessor degree, each Scientologist is asked to make and does make this evaluation for himself on each thing in Dianetics. He is not encouraged to accept it as if from some Authority like Aristotle in Scholasticism. Or Freud in psychology. He is asked to understand it, understand the words used to describe it, demonstrate it, use it, and ask himself is it workable enough for him personally that he can get excellent results with it? So I have always done this with Dianetics, to my satisfaction. I have presented citations here that essentially do the same in this context. No one has proven pseudoscience here, they only proclaimed it as "opinion". I have presented a scientific basis for Dianetics per their criteria and they have not disputed it in those terms. Only by Proclamation. So this is the basis of the conflict, from my view; I present citations and the majority proclaims only. Spirit of Man 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like Scientologists believe that charges of pseudoscience are irrelevant because the standard for them is "workability," not science. Why not just say that? BTfromLA 08:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Charges of pseudoscience are irrelevant because the standard for us is "workability," not science. In 1950 and that era of the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation, when books were published with "Science" on their covers an appeal to science was made. At least one study was done to the criteria defined by the science of psychometry of the day. The primary appeal was to the public and the intelligent laymen without organizations that knew how to handle the subject. Both appeals were ineffective, in my opinion. Spirit of Man 16:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"As to representing the minority view on pseudoscience". I don't see how this issue and its treatment here is any different than the other "claims" in the article by the majority view. Wiki policiy says if you believe something is in error, you should find a correct citation and present it. Things without citations may be deleted by anyone. We only come into conflict when the above principles, and their correct citations are violated. When these are cited, I believe they are all in accordance with Wiki policies and Guidelines. The conflict is when they are summarily deleted, instead of the majority view presenting a balancing citation. They do present citations sometimes, some are bulletin boards, some showing the opinions of self-interested book or fanzine, but not scientific journals, but they simply delete all fairness when they delete all citations that support the above view. When I presented the Science of Survival study of test results. It was deleted then rewritten as if from another source, a survey. Then the "survey" was discredited with a "fanzine" opinion article that did not agree as to the facts of the SoS study. This violates the "citable scope" above. It also violates Wiki policy in that they did not find a superior citation to refute it, they rewrote it into something it was not with a citation that is not accessible. Spirit of Man 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

"Citable scope"? What's that? (Sounds like one of those 50's movie formats.) I can't address all the stuff you're saying above--though I don't think I've ever seen the study and charts that you keep saying were deleted. Otherwise, I basically responded to this subject above. BTfromLA 08:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The Chart was proposed by the psychometrists. The conducted before and after Wechsler tests and the results were compared to get a difference for each participant. This graph is available in Science of Survival 20 printing. These differences for the 88 participants, are then plotted with IQ gain or loss vertically. The high gain was 26 up. The most loss was 8 points down. Eight participants tested negative. 80 tested positive for an average gain of about 10 points. The graph is signed by The Graph is signed as "Prepared by:" Gordon Southon, Psychometrist. The study is cited in the Introduciton to SoS. It is signed by the Hubbard Dianetic Research Foundation not Hubbard. It is not available to my knowledge on the web. Spirit of Man 16:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

By citable scope I mean as in the DMSMH Introduction. The article addresses the philosophy, science and therapy, but not the self-improvement techiques. The current first line cites "self-improvement techiques" on Wiki, that do not mention Dianetics. The book does mention philosophy, science and therapy so placed these in the introductory line and cited DMSMH witch is the subject of the page and the article content that address these things. Those things are citable. But I requested a citation for "self-improvement techniques" and ChrisO says, the book is "classified that way" and there is a "Self-Improvement Package sold... I don't take that as a better ref than the book and article and its content on the book itself. The Minority Viewpoint and Wiki policies were violated in my opinon.Spirit of Man 16:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, "One more thing, Spirit of Man: do you really believe Bridge Publications is the sort of "reliable source" or "reputable publisher" that the wikipedia guidelines about credible sources are describing?" Yes, I do. Do they publish peer-reviewed scientific journals like the AMA? No. Does the AMA have a credible track record from the view of Dianetics, No. [From the view of Linus Pauling, Double Noble laureate who was shunned for Vitamin C research? No. From the view of Albert Schatz, Nobel Laureate (belated) who was shunned for claiming to have found the first researched wonder drug, antibotic, and innumerable others? No. On the subject of nutrition, No. On the subject of Chiropractic, and other subjects shunned and invalidated by the AMA as quackery? No] Is Bridge more reputable than the Denver bulletin board article cited? yes. More reputable than the books by Gardner [represented as an amateur mathmetician], Yes. Than the article by Fischer, a student? Yes To press the point, what publisher or article presented in the entire Dianetics article is more reputable? I believe the Majority View feels obligated to defame and disrespect Bridge and New Era and Hermitage House. What is the criteria you used, to ask this question in this way? And one more thing, you elaborated far more than I read into the Wiki policy on fact checking than I did. Do you really have a Wiki reference for all those things? Or any of them? In any event, they do have fact checking and that is NOT evident in the articles cited and included in the article by the Majority View. I have pointed out major errors in nearly all of them, that would have been corrected by the caliber of fact checking that you envision and compare to Bridge. Do you agree none of the "controversial" citations meet your personal criteria? If you believe some do please educate me. Spirit of Man 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the bit about sources on WP:V, it says this: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources." Note the "third-party." Bridge, etc., are partisan interested parties when in comes to Dianetics and Scientology--extremely so. As to my definition of fact-checking--I've had some small experience writing and being written about. And well-funded news publications who place a value on their reputation for accuracy hire fact checkers to be sure that if a reporter writes that, say, Tom Cruise was paid $35 million to appear in a tv commercial, that he really was pid that amount for that commercial. Doesn't make 'em perfect, by a long shot, but it does add to their credibility. Peer-review, in an academic context (with science in particular) serves the same function. BTfromLA 08:12, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It is claimed by critics that Hubbard facts are not checked. This is an opinion of the Majority View. I claim they are checked thoroughly. This is my view. Are there any facts, like the one you cited that show Bridge has not done fact checking? I know of none. I have asked many times but have no answer. Hermitage published the same book in 1950. It is not published to a science market, it was published to the broad public. Tenebrous, said to someone it published science "text books". There are about 20 tests mentioned Evolution of Science that Hubbard claims he did. I know of no other scientists that have cross checked these tests. There is no conflicting data. I submit the Majority View wishes to diminish the subject one way they have used to do this is vilify Bridge. Well, as editors we can read they vilify, that does not mean they have proven. Spirit of Man 16:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

You skipped past the key point, Spirit of Man. "Credible THIRD-PARTY sources." In other words, people who are writing about a subject as outside observers and who have a stake in being factually accurate in their accounts (like journalists or scholarly researchers). Bridge isn't being vilified--it is certainly the main place to find the writings of Hubbard and the official opinions of the CoS, and as such it is frequently and rightly a source of materials quoted in the article--but it is a completely biased source of arguments about the claims of and contentious issues that surround Dianetics and Scientology. "The New York Times" is, I think, a prime example of the sort of third-party source the guidelines are suggesting, with regard to scientology and most other topics. But they wouldn't be a credible third-party source about the qualities of the New York Times. BTfromLA 17:55, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

So, you are saying Bridge is a reputable source for "the writings of Hubbard and the official opinions of the CoS"? Spirit of Man 04:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Second, you are saying Bridge is not reputable when you say, "it is a completely biased source of arguments about the claims of and contentious issues that surround Dianetics and Scientology?" To my knowledge I have not cited Bridge in this way. Can you give an example or to clarify what you mean? Spirit of Man 04:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have time to respond at length now, but please take a step back: you keep skipping over the "third-party" qualification. This is key. Do you understand what that means and why it is a relevant criteria for the credibility of encyclopedic sources? As to your question about fact checking (though I suggest we don't get hung up on this aspect--it's a digression from the main principal here)--there is a wikipedia article fact checker. BTfromLA 15:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

When I scanned the internet for encyclopedic articles on Dianetics outside of Wiki, I didn't find any (maybe one that copied Wiki). I suspect this "third-party" issue has something to do with that. Maybe we can't have a fair representation of two views here. I hope we can. I understand "third-party" as: A person writes something, he is the first party, he said it. He has it published by a wealthy friend, and sells two books, that is a second party. But if he has it published by a publisher that independently checks things WP:V then that publisher meets Wiki "third-party" qualifications. If it sells to large numbers of people then that has more weight. Now I have accused some editors here of intending to reduce the scope of the subject to nothing. These people say; well Bridge is too close to Hubbard, so is New Era, and Hermitage only sold text books, and the Hubbard Dianetics Research Foundation had financial troubles, so even though you site four publishers, and 10 to 14 books on the New York Times Best Seller list, you may not post. Now we have this bulletin board in Denver...THAT is a third-party publisher (because it agrees with their view on hypnosis). We have this student paper that is accessable on PUB:MED, that will stand and citations from Hubbard and Bridge with a 100 million books, tens of millions of readers, will be deleted on sight. So far that is the interpretation of "third-party" I've seen on this article and its sub-articles. Does it make a difference here whether Bridge is "primary source" or "third-party"? It is what it is. I have asked in my draft of a minority view that it be accepted as the minority view that Bridge publishes Hubbard works and they are citable. I have been able to cite errors in publishing that amount to lack of fact checking on each of the articles cited that I researched. Bridge shows a chart a ref says it can't be envisioned, so the author of that book has a citation under pseudoscience with no fair presentation that Dianetics has published that exact thing for 50 years. Spirit of Man 18:46, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition: third party n.. 1. A political party... (this definition is not relevant to our discussion) 2. One other than the principals involved in a transaction: I pay rent to a third party, not directly to the landlord. By the way, being a "third party" is completely independent of being a "primary source." One could be both at once, as with an eyewitness bystander to a car accident. They are a primary source of info about the accident--they were directly present--and they are a third party: they are not the principals (in this case, those would be the drivers who collided). BTfromLA 03:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

"Third party" not the interested, creating party nor the second party, but a disinterested and therfore independant third party who has no emotional relationship with the first party or the second party. A judge is a "disinterested third party" who's only task has to do with procedure, rather than guilt. (when running a courtroom) Terryeo 04:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, Terryeo: disinterested and independent. These (ideally) are attributes of journalists, scholars and scientific researchers, as opposed to the people who have an immediate personal stake in the claims under discussion. BTfromLA 08:09, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Right, full agreement about what a "third party" is. Disinterested and independent. We agree and that is how Scientology uses the term. But there are professions who attempt to present themselves as disinterested third parties who have their own drum to beat. Rolling Stones could have found and hired a Scientologist to collaberate and help write their article. They did not. The drum they beat is "circulation." They are in business to sell and not in the business of being a "disinterested third party."Terryeo 13:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Every individual and every organization has biases, agendas and limitations. The fact that magazines aim to publish stories that will attract readers doesn't disqualify them from being credible third-party sources for purposes of wikipedia articles. The LA Times, Time Magazine, BBC, CBS News, ABC News, and Rolling Stone are credible third party sources about the CoS, whatever arguments you may have with their underlying assumptions, or with particular writers, articles, or editorial policies. Freedom magazine is not a credible third party source, for reasons we've agreed to above. BTfromLA 16:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, do you agree Bridge meets your definition above of third party; "One other than the principals involved in a transaction: I pay rent to a third party, not directly to the landlord." Hubbard is a principal. A Reader is a principal. The transaction is the Reader reading a book. A publisher is a third-party. WP:V adds; "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." I claim Bridge meets this criteria for "credible". Do you agree? Now we must address your claim of "disinterest and independent". First of all whose issue is this? Is it yours, is it Terryeo's or the CoS's policy. No, it is Wiki's policy we are talking about. What Wiki policy supports this additional view? You see this begins to involve us in the dispute rather than what is Wiki policy. One side says too close, and the other says far enough. It doesn't resolve the dispute. If I quote the goal of Dianetics from SoS, I could have just as easily cited any number places it is published on the web. Antaeus disputes whether this goal is truly what Dianetics is doing. Bridge meets your dictionary definition and Terryeo has not cited a dictionary. The simple resolution without adding the dispute into the definition is to accept your dictionary definition. The rest as far as Wiki is concerned is disputed. Certainly the Majority View would be to not accept Terryeo's more inclusive Scientology definition. Spirit of Man 19:32, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of Man, are you deliberately trying to introduce confusion to a relaively staightforward issue?

No Spirit of Man 21:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

That's how it seems. Obviously, Bridge Publications is not a third party when it comes to Dianetics and Scientology--they are an interested party, that is, they have a direct personal stake in the outcome of arguments about those topics.

Where in your definition does it say "interested"? Here is your def, "One other than the principals involved in a transaction". Spirit of Man 21:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I mean "interested" as the complimentary term to "disinterested," which we used above.

"We" didn't use it above. You and Terryeo did. Terry said, "Right, full agreement about what a "third party" is. Disinterested and independent. We agree and that is how Scientology uses the term." You and I disagree. You have asked me to agree to a dictionary definition and I have agreed with your dictionary definition, that does not have "interested" in it. This is the definition of "third party" not "disinterested third-party. I can agree with you on "disinterested third-party" and that is the way you are using the term. But that is NOT the dictionary term you asked me to see. I'm saying Bridge does meet your dictionary criteria and Wiki criteria for third-party publisher with accurate fact-checking capability. We can agree on the distinction they are not disinterested. When we address this issue I can say that Time Publishing does NOT have a record of "disinterested" on this issue either, nor even correct facts when compared to LRH original documents. I can show that nearly all the citations in the article, especially pseudoscience have factual errors when compared to LRH originals. One says "no charts" I can show the "chart". The whole point is that both side need to be represented for the reader to have the truth of the presentations of both sides. This is the only way it can make sense for an encyclopedia like Wiki to have no liability, when presenting unchecked information from the non-credible publishers such as Wiley and Carroll and his book Skeptics Dictionary and "no charts". Spirit of Man 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If you'd prefer, we can call Bridge Publications principals (or a representative of the principals) in issues regarding Scientology.

I disagree, in this sense. Nearly all the material in this Dianetics article really has nothing to do with Scientology, it is pre-1954. There is some later. The principals in the article are LRH, Hermitage House Publishing and the Dianetics Research Foundation. I believe all the citations I made from Dianetics Today 1975 have been deleted. Spirit of Man 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of Man, I am close to concluding that your goal here is purely to harass and distract from the job of editing, not to actually understand and apply the principles of encyclopedic writing. Bridge is an affiliate of the Church of Scientology, who are, without doubt, a principal party with regard to Dianetics and Scientology. BTfromLA 20:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, my goal here is not to harass and distract. It is to define the minority view. Yes, they may be considered principal parties to CoS. Spirit of Man 01:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

But nearly all of this artice is about Dianetics and per-CoS. In 1950 Hubbard was the author, party one, the Reader was, party two. Hermatige House was the third party publisher. Fast forward to 2006. The exact same book is published by Bridge. Hubbard is dead, the first party. The Reader is the second party, Bridge is the third part publisher. This book is used by the CoS in some courses. The book is also mass marketed to all public book stores and book sellers exactly in the same text as 1950. The book is an icon. It has sold over 20 million copies. You seem to be inclined to not credit Bridge as meeting your dictionary definition of third party. Also, not meeting Wiki criteria for fact checking and accuracy. I am close to concluding you can't admit your own dictionary citation in this thread applies to what your are claiming about Bridge. If you presented it in error then just admit it. Spirit of Man 01:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

What is the problem with this? They are affiliated with the Church of Scientology, and are plainly partisan in matters related to LRH, Dianetics and Scientology. Would you disagree with that? If not, I really don't see what the dispute is here--they aren't a "credible third party source" for these articles, but that doesn't mean anything bad about them. BTfromLA 00:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying. You are saying all of these are "interested third party sources", we can agree.

I am saying no such thing, and you know it. LRH, Freedom Mag, Bridge pubs, etc. are not third party sources. BTfromLA 20:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, you are putting words in my mouth, I do not know it. Your dictionary is correct and says what I know. You are merely adding "interested" and I am agreeing with you. The issue is not whether Bridge is an "interested" party, because I agree with you, but whether it meets Wiki criteria, and incidently your own dictionary as well. It does. Spirit of Man 01:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Wiki doesn't say that. It says "credible third party source" and defines that only as "fact checking and accurate" and not as an "intersted" party. I say this is true of Bridge. Then you say they are not a "credible third party source" and we disagree because you have added an unneeded criteria that they do not meet. I say they meet Wiki criteria and your dictionary defintion. When you add "interested" party, yes that is true but it is not a Wiki criteria. Spirit of Man 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Same goes for LRH, RTC, Mike Rinder, Heber Jentsch, Freedom magazine, etc. And this isn't "my definition," it comes from the American Heritage dictionary--a credible third party source!

Where does it say "interested" in American Heritage Dictionary? You have added that. Spirit of Man 21:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

See above. BTfromLA 00:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

See your defintion. Spirit of Man 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If the use of "interested" is so vexing to you, skip it. That term isn't needed. Are they the principal parties under discussion, or the representatives of those parties? BTfromLA 20:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, "interested" is not vexing to me. I understand the two parties, as regards Wiki are LRH, the author and the Reader. These were the two parties; in 1950, now and in the future. The publisher is currently Bridge, which is the third party. They sell to CoS and to broad public markets completely aside from CoS activity. Yes, Bridge is also closely associated with the CoS and they use the book in courses. If you wish, Bridge is a principal party with CoS, but is that relavent to Wiki? Both ways they are a third party publisher. Spirit of Man 01:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Spirit, by your arguments all publishers are third party publishers. Since that cannot be true, your argument is fallacious. Bridge is not a third party, they are owned by the CoS. For all practical purposes they are the same organization. The Reader does not enter into this discussion. The author, Bridge, and the CoS are all working towards the same goal. They are the interested parties. A third-party publisher would be one not affiliated with the CoS in any way. Random House or the Penguin Group would qualify, but they may not be considered reputable for all issues. For anything dealing with science, it's best to use peer-reviewed sources. Clear enough? Tenebrous 00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The rest of what you are saying above seems totally confused... I don't think you've identified any issue that merits a response.

I had identified that neither your def nor Wiki "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" require this added thing "interest" that you use to reject everything. Spirit of Man 21:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

See above. BTfromLA 00:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

See your definiton. Spirit of Man 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I encourage you to ask some disinterested third parties their opinion about this definition and it's application here--I can't see where there is any legitimate basis for controversy, and I don't want to spend my energy arguing round and round endlessly about a non-issue. BTfromLA 20:10, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, I have posted this issue at Wikipedia: Third Opinion to have someone give their opinion as you requested. Spirit of Man 01:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Good. I look forward to reading the reactions of people who are confronted with your astonishing assertion that L Ron Hubbard and the Church of Scientology are third party sources of information about Dianetics. (If anyone reading this is unaware, Dianetics is exclusively promoted and marketed by the Church of Scientology and it's affiliates, including Bridge/New Era publications, their publishing arm.) BTfromLA 02:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Where did I say LRH was a third party source? I said he and the Reader/buyer are the first two parties. Bridge is a publisher/seller and is a third party. Amazon.com promotes and markets Dianetics. They are a third pary. My local bookstore promotes and markets Dianetics. They are a third party. Why do you say it is exclusively...CoS? I haven't said Bridge was disinterested. I haven't said the CoS was disinterested. Bridge publishes the books as a third party. The CoS uses the books on courses. The CoS doesn't "read" the books, it resells the books, it asks students to buy them for courses. That is a third party. An "interested" third party and I have agreed to this. Spirit of Man 14:57, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Many if not most Bridge publications, which you are claiming to be "credible third party sources" for purposes of these articles, are the works of L Ron Hubbard, are they not?

Yes, they are the works of LRH. I am not claiming "a book" is a credible third party source. I'm claiming Bridge is a credible third party source, or publisher meeting Wiki requirements and your American Heritage def number 2.Spirit of Man 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The rest are officially sanctioned CoS works extolling the virtues of Hubbard or of various scientology enterprises, including Dianetics, plus some number of how-to Dianetics and Scientology training manuals.

Bridge is a publisher, not a book. Spirit of Man 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What sort of 'sorce" could Bridge be that doesn't involve publications? BTfromLA 01:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ergo, you are arguing that LRH and the CoS are credible third party sources of info about Dianetics, a completely incredible position.

I said above that LRH is the first party, the Reader the second and Bridge the third party. LRH is a credible source of information about Dianetics, but as far as Wiki is concerned he is not a third party. Spirit of Man 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Relative to the first party, LRH and the Reader as second party, the CoS is a third party when it sells an LRH book to a student. It is credible, a credible third party source of LRH books. But it has LRH policies and bulletins that it has taken unto itself and incorporated into an ongoing applied religious philosophy. LRH has nothing to do with the operation of this orgainization, because he is dead. So now CoS is a primary source for Dianetics and Scientology and is not a third party to that activity. The CoS is a primary source of knowledge, as Terryeo has posted, and as LRH was previously, a first party. They own the copyrights and may have them published. They have them published by Bridge Publications, Inc. So Bridge is an interested credible third party publisher per WP:V. Spirit of Man 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that any competent high school student is expected to understand such concepts as "primary sources," "credible sources," and "third party sources," and to grasp the intention behind and appropriate application of those concepts. The fact that you fail to do so

Are we working out a solution or burning a bridge? When you present a dictionary definition, I agree with you, then you change what you are saying. Let's find why you disagree with your own definition before we go into "psychosis" and bad faith. To me it looks like you have a fixed idea, and each time you get close to resolving it you bounce. Let's fix one thing at a time and just push through till we both agree. I'm sorry Terry intruded, because I think that is the defintion you wanted rather than the one you actually gave. We have been going around since then about what you said and and he said. A third party may be neutral, disinterested or an interested party. A "third party" is not the same as an "interested third party". Spirit of Man 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

even after extensive, patient explanation makes it clear that either 1. you have a serious intellectual deficit or psychosis that prohibits you from grasping simple concepts or 2. you are deliberately trying to sew confusion, waste the time and exploit the good faith of the editors here, and subvert the process of editing credible articles on these subjects. After months of experience with you, I can no longer assume that you are operating in good faith. My money, in other words, is on option no 2. BTfromLA 15:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You provided a definition from American Heritage for "third party" for use in this discussion. Do you agree Bridge meets that defintion? Spirit of Man 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If not, do you agree Bridge is an interested third party publisher? Spirit of Man 22:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it does not, as I've said repeatedly above, and this whole conversation has become both pointless and loony. I'm not going to pursue this further. If I characterized you inacurrately earlier, I apoligize for the harshness of tone. But I honestly doubt your motives at this point, and if you truly don't understand the concepts at work here better than you claim to, in my opinion you need to stop editing and study some basic (non- LRH) texts on nonfiction writing, journalism and research. BTfromLA 01:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with you. LRH is the first party, the Reader is the second party, Bridge is the third party. Your answer says that Bridge is either LRH as a writer or a Reader. ???? I claim you don't understand your own dictionary definition. I agree your failure to use your own presented definition that I agreed with, is pointless and loony. If it doesn't apply why did you present it? I think you have an inability to think with your own definition. I understand this comes from accepting some "false information" regarding it one way or the other. Before that moment you probably could think with the subject. But as this point it is not apparent. If you care to read what the WP:Third Opinion brings that may help. I hope so. You have been using a harsh tone in several places and I thank you for the comment. Spirit of Man 19:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The only reason to bring any of this third party business up is to talk about which published materials are appropriate as sources of fact for Wikipedia articles. This is not an issue about the relationship between an author, his reader, and his publisher or bookseller. Nor is it about landlords and rent payments. It's about the principle of "credible third party sources" for encyclopedia articles. I've tried. If you can't understand which aspects of the "third party" concept are relevant here at this point, perhaps someone else can communicate more effectively that I. BTfromLA 19:32, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

YES! As in, please in the name of the deity-of-your-choice go learn to write! Your inability to think may or may not be curable, Spirit, but at the very least we should not have to wade through the reams of poorly-written crap that you regularly produce during arguments. Take a couple months off--the articles will still be here when you get back. Learn to express yourself clearly and succinctly. Think of it as a weapon in this fight, if you want. As is, I think you're being counterproductive to your cause. Tenebrous 02:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Tenebrous, can you explain what you ment by, "As in, please in the name of..."? Please review ad hominum. Your statements could easily be viewed as a personal attack; "Your inability to think", "crap", "you're being counterproductive". Since you have not participated here, it makes one wonder as to your motives. Are you a cheerleader? Spirit of Man 19:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A cheerleader? No, can't say that I've ever been involved with that profession. However, you appear to be using your own definition of that term--perhaps you'd like to explain it? And by the way, it's Ad Hominem, and it would be valid except that I'm not saying negative things about you to further an argument. As is your usual, you address everything but the point--did I repeat it too often? Here it is again: you write badly. Go fix that. And as for the personal attack, yes, I did go a little bit further than the bounds of civility. It's a constant temptation to give my view of you in more certain terms. Given your own history and that of your associates, I think a little leniency towards personal attacks is not too much to ask. Wouldn't you agree? Tenebrous 00:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

At this point, I understand you intend to delete about half the citations on the article that derive from all those sources you mentioned? Why don't you just cut and past xenu.com and clambake.com into the article and call it good? Because Wiki says the minority view is to be fairly treated. If you delete all minority citations that say the facts of the matter what is to balance the non-factual basis of the rest of the article?Spirit of Man 21:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of Man, where have I ever suggested that citations from Hubbard or Bridge publications don't belong in the article?

Do you agree nearly every one of my edits, and other minority view editors have been deleted for the reasons cited in the Minory View above? One of those has to with the acceptance of Bridge as citable, or "not a credible publisher", and I mean in the sense that Wiki editors may not delete it for being non-credible. I asked about a half dozen time above for your confirmations and they were not forth comming, until today. Spirit of Man 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You cannot possibly believe I'm planning to delete those citations. In fact, on several occasions, I have made a point of saying that they do have a rightful place in the article, and are perfectly "citable"--though I suspect you're idea of a citation has a twist that I'm not familiar with--I can't see why citability is an issue at all. I'm saying, for the ump-teenth time, that Bridge publications is an excellent source of the claims Hubbard and the CofS make for Dianetics.

Thank you!

But they are not the sort of third party source that we can use as a reputable arbiter of the factual nature of those claims.

I don't see where that will even come up. Wiki does not make those value judgements to my knowledge. Spirit of Man 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

If virtually every third-party who has analysed Dianetics--newspaper, magazine and TV reporters, investigative journalists, sociologists, scientists, historians, etc.--has reached conclusions that you consider "non-factual," well, you may never feel fairly treated. Because those are the sources that Wikipedia relies upon. BTfromLA 00:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

You have used the term "third party" again where you seem to disagree with your own dictionary citation given above.

How so? BTfromLA 20:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, here you use your dictionary definition. Above you are always including the idea of "interested" party when you use the idea of "third party". Spirit of Man 01:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

BTfromLA, maybe I am asking or saying the wrong thing when I say "citable" in the minority view above. Maybe the majority view are just maliciously deleting valid citations? Spirit of Man 01:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

This time I will take it as the dictionary meaning. My view is that the facts of these sources in general do not meet Wiki accurate fact checking. It is not my job to debunk each of them. But I can provide a Dianetic citation with citable facts. I would like the citation to stand and let the reader make a judgement, rather than the citation be deleted and the deleting editor take no responsibility for fact checking from a source that has not checked their facts, because in fact they represent an interest emotionally close to a certain interpretation of those ideas. Like Carroll has a financial interest in his own book and job, but does not write facts about Dianetics. Even Tenebrous admits they are "opinion", but still deletes the "Dianetic" citations in dispute. Spirit of Man 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I ask you to accept Bridge as a citable publisher. You have not said why it does not meet your definition. You have not shown how it does not meet Wiki criteria. Spirit of Man 21:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

As I say above, you can cite Bridge publications or any other publications in their proper place. I think I have shown clearly and at length why they are not a "credible third party source" in the context of these articles. If anyone else is reading this, perhaps they can jump in to let us know whether or not they have any doubt about this issue. BTfromLA 00:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you are begging the question. I am trying to establish a minority point of view. When I post a citation stating the facts of situation, like the Carroll issue says no IQ Chart. When I do as you say, my citation is deleted. When you post such issues it stands. My point is that it is citation, it is the acceptance of a minority view. Currently there is no fairness, the minority view is simply deleted. I say this is an extreme POV and not NPOV. David Gerard has outlined for anti-scientologists how to use NPOV is this way, and did initiate the WP:SCN project to do this. You may have clarified something for yourself, I don't see that answered my question. If I were not here, you would be the one being deleted in the same way. Spirit of Man 02:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Attempting to be succinct. Bridge Publications, there are two factors. First, is it a "refutable publisher" per WP:V, that is, do they publish information which is presented as the author intended it to be presented. In that particular, editors have (I think) agreed that they do. That is, Bridge can be considered as a refutable, special interest publisher. So we don't have to cross check their work with other sources to asertain their publications are what the author intended. So therefore, anything Bridge publishes can be considered valid within its own context. This is not to be confused with "accpected by the scientific community" or with, "accpected by the public at large", but within thier area of publication they produce good publications.Terryeo 19:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Spirit of man (I think) has been edited out so very many times when he (and I too) have put good, cited information into the article. Cited by Bridge Publications books. You know, Make a quote, cite the source. and *boom* it gets edited out. This is directly contrary to Wikipedia policies but happens. I think Spirit of Man is attempting to cause other editors to see that if Xenu.net can be quoted, then certainly Bridge Publications can be quoted. If the New York Times can be quoted, then certainly, books registered with the Library of Congress (almost all of Bridge's books are) can be quoted and appropriately cited. Terryeo 19:07, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I might point out that about half the citations and sources in the article are published by Bridge. Why delete Bridge only when minority view editors cite them? Spirit of Man 16:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I knew everyone would eventually have to admit that Dianetics, Published by Bridge Publications, is broadly published. Juxtaposed against this broad, public base of millions of sold books is a small amount of published material. I knew that eventually WP:V would lead to a balanced article. It basically spells out, "the most published is the majority point of view". It does not say that exactly, but the idea of Wikipedia is to present published information. The most published gets the most presentation. Well, Dianetics is broadly published. Here and there a handful of individuals have declared in minor publications against Dianetics but they don't have the finaces to publish as much as Dianetics does. Economically, Dianetics works, is published, sold, etc. and is broadly published by a good quality, special interest company. I knew this datum would eventually influence these articles. Terryeo 16:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Terryeo, you may have topped your own previous high mark for distorted interpretation of policy with this one. By your measure, Wikipedia articles should be based on Mexican porno comics, Mao's Little Red Book, and Jack Chick Tracts. BTfromLA 17:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, this is a record. By the way, Terryeo, WP:V says nothing of the sort, and it never will. Tenebrous 20:59, 24 March 2006 (UTC)